After extracting apology from “HanAs**holeSolo”, CNN reserves right to expose him.

Share this story

The alleged source of the animated GIF of Donald Trump beating down WWE Chief Executive Vince McMahon with a CNN logo superimposed on McMahon's face deleted many of his posts to Reddit. He also issued an apology on /r/the_donald for his trolling activities after being tracked down by the production team of CNN's KFile.

CNN reported on the source, who uses the Reddit username "HanAssholeSolo," and reserved the right to expose his identity later if he did not change his online behavior.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo’s" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

That implied threat led to a widespread negative response, with some accusing CNN of bullying or blackmail. CNN later issued a statement, saying that the individual's name had been withheld for his safety and no deal was reached. Hacker, troll, and self-described white supremacist Andrew “weev” Auernheimer has threatened, through the white supremacist site The Daily Stormer, to dox CNN’s reporting team and its family members. Auernheimer is a fan of the Trump tweet, including the photoshopped WWE video.

Further Reading

“Just like CNN tracked down this child and used media exposure as a bludgeon against him for posting (truthful and funny) things that they don’t like, we are going to begin tracking down their families as a bludgeon against them for publishing (seditiously fraudulent) things that we don’t like,” Auernheimer wrote. He demanded CNN “fix this” by firing the KFile , denouncing the threat in the story, and by giving HanAssholeSolo a $50,000 college scholarship and assurances that “he and his family will never be harmed by your organization.”

CNN reports that the individual behind the video is not a teenager, as Aurheimer implied, but an adult male. But the questions as to why CNN’s editorial team felt compelled to place the network at the center of the story, and then publish what could be interpreted as an implied threat instead of reporting the individual’s name outright, remain. CNN did not respond to an Ars request for comment; if CNN makes a statement, Ars will update this story.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

Also, as others have been discussing the purposes of anonymity regarding this situation, I believe the fact that this person has remained anonymous after all of this is astounding. How long that'll last? I have no idea.

But his GIF was retweeted by the mf'n POTUS to his 30+ million twitter followers then retweeted to millions of others. He was also discovered by the exact news network that was depicted being body slammed by the POTUS in that gif. But by issuing an apology and removing the content, he was able to remain "anonymous". Also considering the volatile nature of his other reddit posts, CNN many other options than letting him remain anonymous.

You can debate the necessity of the apology in this instance, but when it's the anonymous individual voluntarily providing it, and the news network accepting and respecting their anonymity, it speaks volumes to how much you can get away with while remaining anonymous.

The person isn't responsible for what Donald Trump does, and don't have to take any consequense of that.He isn't anonymous to CNN then, and some might like to be that too.

It just goes to provide more evidence that everything trump touches, dies.

Can't wait to see a lot of thoughtful pieces about a guy who compiled a list of people at CNN who are Jewish and handed that off to the alt-right.

CNN themselves compiled a list of white people within the Trump Administration. Ars regularly features articles that bean counts the number of white people at Tech companies. If you are somebody who thinks it is a problem that a group that comprises 62-77% of the US population is represented in large numbers in certain fields than you certainly can't complain when someone else points out the massive dominance a group that only comprises 2-5% of the US population has within your own organization.

You forget that those lists also take into account gender, which shows that a majority of people are underrepresented.

Also, please don't compare this practice to similar practices that are motivated by anti-semitism.

My view is that CNN found the identity of the troll, put the fear of Ghu into him by finding him trivially easily, thus blowing the misconception on his side that "anonymity = invulnerability" - He probably did beg and plead not to be revealed because he knew that, if he was, the prospects of employment in any public-facing job were next to nil, since this story would haunt him for decades.

No, CNN's warning about the "right to identify him" if he trolled again wasn't directed at the the original troll: Not at all: It is directed at *future* trolls, who may be considering the same thing.

That doesn't make it any better in some ways it makes it even worse. CNN being a news organization should know the corrosive power of the 'chilling effect' can have on the free expression of ideas (even grotesque ideas).

CNN is a news organization. Is the name of the troll news? If so they should have just named him. If it isn't news they shouldn't and shouldn't make any sort of implied threats in the process. It is a pretty simple concept and nothing CNN did in this respect can or should be defended.

I don't really see this as an implied threat. Because of his circumstances they cut him a break as he probably asked them to - given that he would be moving outside of what was fair game for journalists then this is within good ethics. However, if the subject doesn't uphold his side and continues to be "of public interest" by his own actions, then they don't.

Seems to be a damned if you do (name a possible naieve minor) damned if you don't situation thats being played out.

- Trump tweets a GIF- Using info the creator posted, CNN reaches out to him for comment- He's ashamed of his racist comment history, apologizes and whitewashes his account, and asks for anonymity- CNN agrees

Looking into the source of the video is a perfectly relevant thing to do. Sure, it turned out to have just been a racist jackass, lord knows there's plenty of those scumbags, but it could have been someone or something far more important. We've already seen that the creator of the "redpill" subreddit was a US politician of some kind. If the source of this were a politician, a PR firm hired by the White House/Trump, or a Russian troll factory, I think that would definitely be newsworthy and in the public interest.

CNN could have handled it better once they found out where it came from, and threatening someone (which I could easily see the statement being construed as) does seem unethical but that's the only thing I can see wrong about their conduct.

To be truthful, I am in 2 minds as to whether the racist scumbag should be revealed for all the word to see, but that does present the question of where the line is drawn. If it's ok for people's anonymity to be unmasked on the internet because of their racist views, would it be ok for people to lose anonymity in other situations - e.g. looking for help on sexual issues (e.g. being gay) or even just complaining about their employer? If not, why not, and who decides who deserves privacy?

Could they have worded it better? Sure. But they didn't have many options at this point.

CNN should NEVER have had anything to do with this guy/contacted this guy in the first place. It isn't newsworthy. Like straight up who gives a fuck who creates some internet meme. It comes across as INSANELY petty by them.

Agreed 100% - and they are a MEDIA organization, hence the wording was not only poor but quite obviously deliberate. The entire globe basically understood the veiled threat. It wasn't a case of an obscure sentence created by accident and missed by editors.

The animated GIF is, IMO, a rather amusing take on a current political story. I have no issue with CNN tracking down where it came from in order to find out how Trump got hold of it (and verify any claim by Trump of where he got it from). If they had stopped there everyone would have had no complaints.

Of course at that point the corporate reputation defence team at CNN clearly stepped in and stepped way beyond journalistic integrity. Hans a##solo or whatever his name is may be a right wing troll who posts racist and anti-semetic on social media every day but why is that relevant to the story? To then threaten to expose his real name (unless he stops being nasty about CNN) just takes it to another depth of scumbaggery.

It is CNN who should apologise, both for the threats they made and for a clear total lack of a sense of humour

How is it not relevant to the story? If the President of the United States is tweeting things sourced from racists -- and this is far from the first time -- then that's certainly newsworthy.

Anyhow, I don't think this was meant as a threat. I think it was meant as "We know who he is, but there's no reason to release that information", and it was just a crappy delivery on that and really didn't need to be stated at all. It is possible that the identity might be a newsworthy item in the future -- there are plenty of actions people can take where their identity is legitimate news.

But from what I've read, before this was posted, this middle-aged guy had already deleted his account and apologized of his own volition. So there's no reason to think there was any kind of threat intended.

As POTUS seems to get most of his information from Bannion and Breitbart, getting information from a random right wing racist is almost mundane.

If CNN discovered that POTUS only frequents the reddits and FB pages of nazi party of US (and similar) then that would also be news.

But at the moment CNN has presented no information to suggest that this was discovered in any way other than random google searches (probably some variant on "Trump v CNN"). For this reason, at the moment, the other political views of the gif creator are irrelevant - in much the same way that the political views of a comic book creator are irrelevant if the actual comic book does not contain those views. That is why, at the moment, what the other political views and posts of the gif creator are not relevant to the news story. If CNN has evidence as to why it could be relevant it is up to them to show it

I would agree that the CNN corporate reputational team was incredibly clumsy but the idea that there is no implied threat in their statement is, IMO, wrong. The "we retain right to publish that information..." in future is a clear threat and many people would have read it as being a threat should he publish something which impacts on CNN

- Trump tweets a GIF- Using info the creator posted, CNN reaches out to him for comment- He's ashamed of his racist comment history, apologizes and whitewashes his account, and asks for anonymity- CNN agrees

And everyone freaks out?

I thought you were trying to get things straight, and yet here you are deliberately missing the point...

Can't wait to see a lot of thoughtful pieces about a guy who compiled a list of people at CNN who are Jewish and handed that off to the alt-right.

CNN themselves compiled a list of white people within the Trump Administration. Ars regularly features articles that bean counts the number of white people at Tech companies. If you are somebody who thinks it is a problem that a group that comprises 62-77% of the US population is represented in large numbers in certain fields than you certainly can't complain when someone else points out the massive dominance a group that only comprises 2-5% of the US population has within your own organization.

You forget that those lists also take into account gender, which shows that a majority of people are underrepresented.

Also, please don't compare this practice to similar practices that are motivated by anti-semitism.

Even taking gender in to account, the tech world is not even remotely as disproportionately white and male as the mainstream media is Jewish. And if pointing that out that fact is anti-Semitic then it follows that Ars and CNN are guilty of being anti-white.

- Trump tweets a GIF- Using info the creator posted, CNN reaches out to him for comment- He's ashamed of his racist comment history, apologizes and whitewashes his account, and asks for anonymity- CNN agrees

And everyone freaks out?

I thought you were trying to get things straight, and yet here you are deliberately missing the point...

The point is, even the alt-right think the gif is shameful, that's why exposing the creator of the gif is a "threat"?

Can't wait to see a lot of thoughtful pieces about a guy who compiled a list of people at CNN who are Jewish and handed that off to the alt-right.

CNN themselves compiled a list of white people within the Trump Administration. Ars regularly features articles that bean counts the number of white people at Tech companies. If you are somebody who thinks it is a problem that a group that comprises 62-77% of the US population is represented in large numbers in certain fields than you certainly can't complain when someone else points out the massive dominance a group that only comprises 2-5% of the US population has within your own organization.

You forget that those lists also take into account gender, which shows that a majority of people are underrepresented.

Also, please don't compare this practice to similar practices that are motivated by anti-semitism.

Even taking gender in to account, the tech world is not even remotely as disproportionately white and male as the mainstream media is Jewish. And if pointing that out that fact is anti-Semitic then it follows that Ars and CNN are guilty of being anti-white.

This is an odd one. Seems people are more upset by the perceived "threat" then they are about possibly revealing the name.

Personally, I didn't think twice about this story when I first heard it. Just sounded like good investigative journalism to me. A racist, anti-Semitic troll spews hate all over the internet and the POTUS picks up and uses one of his creations. That is news. That is a story. And the person's identity... part of that story. The same way the names of people are included in other stories, every day on the news. Just because someone is hiding behind an internet username does not mean they suddenly are not subject to this.

I also didn't see that statement as a threat the first time I read it. Seemed like it was saying, this guy is taking himself out of the story, so we are not publishing it. If he re-inserts himself back into the story, then that becomes news again, and we will publish it. And we are telling you all of this to be as transparent as possible.

I was viewing it through a lens of journalism, though. In that light, it is pretty benign and standard. In hindsight, I can see how people interpreted that as a threat. I think Andrew Kaczynski has done a decent job of explaining this.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

Actually, I was rather surprised that they decided NOT to publish his identity, having obtained it. I'd prefer to have these trolls dragged out from under their bridges and into the sunlight, for all to see.

I think CNN should have published the guy's name. They figured out who he was using publicly available information the man posted. If he's hiding behind the perception of anonymity then he did a shitty job of staying anonymous. CNN was wrong to do what they did, but this guy was dumb as well and CNN shouldn't protect him.

I am really late to this party, but at first I was thinking this was so wrong, but now, several days later all I can think about is the first amendment. Yes, say what you want, but I think if more people had to have their real identity associated with some of these postings the internet would be a better place overall.

Lots of John and Jane smiths posting racist and inflammatory stuff, and as we seen with this one, the moment the keyboard cowboy is identified, whoa, crap, all of a sudden all his "views" and postings start to change and disappear. So either he just was fanning the flames just because, or he wanted to be viral and "Facebook" famous (or whatever term) or he just doesn't really stand for what he has posted.

I have heard he is a middle aged white guy, pretending to be a fifteen year old. Now that to me just screams immature and wants to just post pure crap. I have never had a feeling or desire to post something just to start a flame war, but then again, I might just be in the minority.

If everyone had to sign a signature block, I am sure things would be a lot calmer and things would settle down. The right to free speech is a given, but so are the repercussions and results. Make people accountable for "fake news" stories and then the Onion can go back to being edgy....LOL...not a possible headline for suckers to believe stories that start there.

Even given the importance of anonymity, I can think of valid possible reasons for giving out his name.For instance what if it came to light that he was a paid shill?If the Trump administration was to hide behind the shield of anonymity (by hiring an outside contractor) would you still consider it sacrosanct?

Dont try to moot this by saying Trump publicly used the gif - just address the point please.Does or should the importance of anonymity give public officials a means of anonymously spreading fake news, or does it give an exception to the importance of anonymity?

- Trump tweets a GIF- Using info the creator posted, CNN reaches out to him for comment- He's ashamed of his racist comment history, apologizes and whitewashes his account, and asks for anonymity- CNN agrees

And everyone freaks out?

I thought you were trying to get things straight, and yet here you are deliberately missing the point...

The point is, even the alt-right think the gif is shameful, that's why exposing the creator of the gif is a "threat"?

The point is, an international corporation is coercing future speech extra-judicially via threats of internet mob justice.

You don't have to be an alt-right fucktard to have a problem with that.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value and the thing being threatened to be exposed isn't illegal?

Can't wait to see a lot of thoughtful pieces about a guy who compiled a list of people at CNN who are Jewish and handed that off to the alt-right.

CNN themselves compiled a list of white people within the Trump Administration. Ars regularly features articles that bean counts the number of white people at Tech companies. If you are somebody who thinks it is a problem that a group that comprises 62-77% of the US population is represented in large numbers in certain fields than you certainly can't complain when someone else points out the massive dominance a group that only comprises 2-5% of the US population has within your own organization.

Thats called "left racism", which some people refuse to admit that its a real thing. Too bad that people dont realize that its bad as "right racism".

Actually, I was rather surprised that they decided NOT to publish his identity, having obtained it. I'd prefer to have these trolls dragged out from under their bridges and into the sunlight, for all to see.

The problem with that is two fold.

First: yes, this guy admitted he was responsible but this is an edge case. What happens when the first innocent person is caught up in the doxing craze? How many is acceptable?

Second: the trolls will not be the only ones to suffer. How many innocent people can be caught up in this before it becomes unacceptable?

Besides, the meme in question is harmless. Not even ten years ago this kind of thing wouldn't have caused more than an eyebrow raise and a chorus of "don't feed the troll". Now, everybody gets butthurt and actually claims this is a call to violence and seeks immediate retribution. Kathy Lee did far worse and nobody with two brain cells thinks she's actually threatening to kill the president. Why is this different?

Sigh ... The internet is going to shit in so many ways and all I can do is remember the good ol days.

NOTE: I can't stand Donald Trump as my previous posting history will clearly indicate. I'm just sick of the cries to punish people for doing things on the internet that hurt your feelings. If you don't like it them do what we used to do back in the day. Either block the person or ignore the person.

I'm of the opinion that being an asshole is a basic human right that should not be infringed. Obviously there needs to be some lines that aren't crossed such as physical violence, but overall I think people just need to grow thicker skin.

I agree that everyone has a right to be an asshole, basic human right even. But I also think it's a basic human right to punch the asshole in their face if you feel slighted. Why give the person with words all the power?

How the HELL do you get from "freedom of expression is a basic right" to "freedom to violently attack others is a basic right"? Jesus fucking wept.

Freedom of expression encompasses a lot of things. Insulting or degrading someone is an attack on someone. I think people have the right to physically defend themselves from verbal attacks. I don't think that an all encompassing freedom of "violently attacking people" is a basic right. Basically if you run your mouth insulting people you should fear physical repercussions.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value?

You're denying the monetary gains from the book. What is CNN denying this person?

Let's flip that around. Say I published the book and you outed my kid. Would a crime have been committed?

The answer is no and it would be consider "good journalism" by the hard right.

Again I'm not saying what CNN did wasn't stupid. The implied threat was a very very dumb thing to publish but this doesn't cross into criminal.

If anything, this should be a lesson to anyone posting on the internet. You are not as anonymous as you think. That took a little bit of cross referencing to figure out the guy's real name. That was all public information, so more fool him for leaving it out there. I see nothing wrong with CNN doing this. If it had been Breitbart doing this, I would have said the same thing.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value?

You're denying the monetary gains from the book. What is CNN denying this person?

Their right to free speech?

Their right to monetize their legal speech?

etc...

I'm curious if you think this should be a general power that corporations have, or if you purpose a way to control how corporations utilize mob justice to control legal speech about them...

I think what gets me here is that if this were CNN tracking down the identity of someone wearing a KKK mask and shouting racial slurs in the street, no one would care, but because it happens online, it's morally reprehensible.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value?

You're denying the monetary gains from the book. What is CNN denying this person?

Their right to free speech?

Their right to monetize their legal speech?

etc...

I'm curious if you think this should be a general power that corporations have, or if you purpose a way to control how corporations utilize mob justice to control legal speech about them...

... Free speech protections are there to prevent the government from suppressing you. Not to protect you from social consequences.

No. Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

We all get outraged by the ignorant things people say and do online, but witch hunts and vigilantism can hurt innocent people, and personal information found online (and elsewhere) is often false or out of date.

Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company. But don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or upvote obvious vigilantism.

So...the over arching lesson to be learned from this little exercise is....

ALWAYS...always use a VPN when posting dank memes ...

Yes? Otherwise, this would be a non-issue, would it not?

Trump posted some meme from some asshole on the internet that nobody knows......end of story.

What? He was not hacked. Why would a VPN help?

I think the point ziegler was fumbling around for is thata) He likes bigots and their work.b) If you're not smart enough to cover your tracks, in general, you probably shouldn't be part of a racist clusterfuck.

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value?

You're denying the monetary gains from the book. What is CNN denying this person?

Their right to free speech?

Their right to monetize their legal speech?

etc...

I'm curious if you think this should be a general power that corporations have, or if you purpose a way to control how corporations utilize mob justice to control legal speech about them...

... Free speech protections are there to prevent the government from suppressing you. Not to protect you from social consequences.

This isn't a social consequence. It's a threat of unspecified consequences, delivered via a mechanism that's known for it's overreactions.

And it's with the specific intent of stifling legal speech.

The 1st Amendment might be for the government, but that doesn't magically make an international corporation threatening and blackmailing someone into not exercising their legal rights suddenly OK...

So...the over arching lesson to be learned from this little exercise is....

ALWAYS...always use a VPN when posting dank memes ...

Yes? Otherwise, this would be a non-issue, would it not?

Trump posted some meme from some asshole on the internet that nobody knows......end of story.

What? He was not hacked. Why would a VPN help?

Because when you post on reddit or other sites, the IP information logged by the site is the VPN's address, not yours. Mind you, I dont know what CNN did to find the guy, he may have had his info in his public profile or some such.

My main point was that if posting anything other than maybe Happy Mother's Day wishes you should do it with anonymity in mind. Never post your real name, or use your real name in emails or user names or such.

Benjamin Franklin understood this very well.

Edit to add: reading the next few posts, yeah, he put himself out there like a fool so if going to post anything remotely controversial in the digital age, protect yourself.

Ron White wannabe: I like free speech, which is why I dont care about your insults and such, I actually find them quite cute and entertaining.

- Trump tweets a GIF- Using info the creator posted, CNN reaches out to him for comment- He's ashamed of his racist comment history, apologizes and whitewashes his account, and asks for anonymity- CNN agrees*

* with the caveat that if he posts stuff in the future they reserve the right to dox him so he better be a good boy and do what CNN says is right

I'll fully admit I haven't read all 4xx comments but are we seriously going to have this discussion without actually looking at the legal definition of blackmail?

18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail : Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

What of "value" is CNN demanding?

Is this an ethically shitty thing to do? - YesIs this blackmail? - Not unless CNN is demanding something of value.

Everyone's got their knickers in a twist over this and is gleefully interpreting it through the lens of their political affiliation. Afterward they get confirmation in their chosen echo chamber reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder we're in this state of things.

To be clear, you think that if I threaten to expose your gay kid to the church community if you publish that book, I'm not blackmailing you because what I want you to do (not publish the book) has no value?

You're denying the monetary gains from the book. What is CNN denying this person?

Their right to free speech?

Their right to monetize their legal speech?

etc...

I'm curious if you think this should be a general power that corporations have, or if you purpose a way to control how corporations utilize mob justice to control legal speech about them...

... Free speech protections are there to prevent the government from suppressing you. Not to protect you from social consequences.

This isn't a social consequence. It's a threat of unspecified consequences, delivered via a mechanism that's known for it's overreactions.

And it's with the specific intent of stifling legal speech.

The 1st Amendment might be for the government, but that doesn't magically make an international corporation threatening and blackmailing someone into not exercising their legal rights suddenly OK...

Blackmailing has already been addressed. Without some gain, it's not blackmail.